Thankfully, I only needed to show how scientifically useless this forum is. I will now spend more time where science and science education is valued, instead of ones for bashing religion and politically inconvenient theory.

Quote ((GaryGaulin @ Nov. 30 2012 @ 01:00))

Quote

REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS

more making shit up

Fastest unflounce in the west.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Before you leave Gary: Does your theory say that hypermutation increases cellular intelligence and the number of intelligent solutions a cell can find?

Quote

REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS

To molecular intelligence a random change includes often damaging cosmic ray recoding of part of its genome. Although it is possible for chance improvements the living genome maintains control of the integrity of memory contents using error correction systems, for as few “random chance” memory changes as possible.

Although a random guess can at times be better than no guess at all, without some form of good-guess genetic recombination for systems on the scale of chromosomes the learning rate of the system would be very low, offspring would be clones of their parents. Therefore a part of the cell cycle has “crossover exchange” where entire regions of chromosomes are safely swapped, to produce a new individual response to the environment that should work as well or better. This is a good guess because the molecular intelligence is starting with what it has already learned then tries something new based upon that coded knowledge. It is not randomly mixing coding regions in an uncontrolled scrambling which would be fatal to it.

Somatic hypermutation occurs when immune cells are fighting a losing battle with germs. The cell responds by searching for a solution to the problem by rapidly taking good guesses. This produces new defensive molecules which become attached to their outside, to help grab onto an invader so it can be destroyed.

Another vital guess mechanism is called transposition (jumping genes), where a coded region of DNA (Data) physically moves to another location, effectively changing its Address location within the cell. Guesses are also produced by code changes of genes and address change mechanisms such as duplications, deletions, crossover exchange, chromosome fusion/fission. Conjugation (cell addressed communication/sharing) may possibly include good guesses which are shared.

Since it may be to dificult to increase exposure to cosmic rays considerably I suggest that from now on you sleep under an UV tanning booth and find a job deep inside an atomic plant. If you don't already do you should definitively start smoking. Due to all the intelligence induced by these agents you may write something coherent one day.

Good idea, thanks..

Quote

REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS

Complex forms of molecular intelligence have sensory receptors on their surface membrane for different morphogenetic proteins (substance that evokes differentiation). Interaction of the protein with the receptor initiates a cascade of events that eventually turns on some genes and turns off others, aiding differentiation of the cell into brain, muscle and other unique cells. Successful actions to take in response to environmental conditions are recalled from its RNA/DNA memory. New memories can be formed as in the classic example of the origin of nylonase where a successful response to environmental chemistry conditions is the result of a good guess that leads to a new action to be taken.

At the molecular intelligence level, good guesses are taken using mechanisms such as crossover exchange, chromosome fusion/fission, duplications, deletions and transpositions (jumping genes) whereby a coded region of DNA data physically moves to another location to effectively change its address location. Information shared by conjugation may possibly include good guesses which are incorporated into its genome. Somatic hypermutation occurs when immune cells are fighting a losing battle with germs. The cell then responds by searching for a solution to the problem by rapidly taking good guesses. This produces new defensive molecules which become attached to their outside, to help grab onto an invader so it can be destroyed.

Although a random guess can at times be better than no guess at all, uncontrolled random change (random mutation) in DNA coding is normally damaging. These are caused by (among other things) x-rays and gamma rays, UV light, smoke and chemical agents. Molecular intelligence systems normally use error correction mechanisms to prevent “random chance” memory changes from occurring. To qualify as a random guess, the molecular intelligence system itself must produce them. An exception is where random change/mutation is the only guess mechanism that it has, which may have existed at dawn of life, in the very first living things.

Without some form of good-guess genetic recombination the learning rate of the system would be very low. Offspring would normally be clones of their parents. Therefore a part of the cell cycle often has crossover exchange where entire regions of chromosomes are safely swapped, to produce a new individual response to the environment that should work as well or better. This is a good guess because the molecular intelligence is starting with what it has already learned then tries something new based upon that coded knowledge. It is not randomly mixing coding regions in an uncontrolled scrambling which would normally be fatal to it.

Regardless of population size a molecular intelligence “gene pool” still relies on single individuals to come up with unique solutions to problems such as digesting nylon, antibiotic resistance and differentiation into new cell morphologies. A gene pool is the combined memory of a "collective intelligence" or more specifically "molecular collective intelligence". By using conjugation to share information, a colony of bacteria (or other cells) can be considered to be a single multicellular organism.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Here is a good example I ran across in an Atheism forum, which helps show the educational problem. Notice how if they cannot understand a theory then the problem is not with them, it’s blamed on me as though it’s my fault they are way behind in science:

Quote

[–]zeroone 1 point 1 year agoCan someone try to make sense of this:_http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/|[–]bloodredsun 2 points 1 year agoA big bag of crazy?|[–]zeroone 1 point 1 year agoOf course. But, ID arguments are usually at least somewhat coherent. Meaning, ID arguments usually involve invented/misinterpreted facts and logical fallacies. But, this is way beyond that. I can't understand a bit of it.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Here is a good example I ran across in an Atheism forum, which helps show the educational problem. Notice how if they cannot understand a theory then the problem is not with them, it’s blamed on me as though it’s my fault they are way behind in science:

Quote

[–]zeroone 1 point 1 year agoCan someone try to make sense of this:_http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/|[–]bloodredsun 2 points 1 year agoA big bag of crazy?|[–]zeroone 1 point 1 year agoOf course. But, ID arguments are usually at least somewhat coherent. Meaning, ID arguments usually involve invented/misinterpreted facts and logical fallacies. But, this is way beyond that. I can't understand a bit of it.

Here is a good example I ran across in an Atheism forum, which helps show the educational problem. Notice how if they cannot understand a theory then the problem is not with them, it’s blamed on me as though it’s my fault they are way behind in science:

Quote

[–]zeroone 1 point 1 year agoCan someone try to make sense of this:_http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/|[–]bloodredsun 2 points 1 year agoA big bag of crazy?|[–]zeroone 1 point 1 year agoOf course. But, ID arguments are usually at least somewhat coherent. Meaning, ID arguments usually involve invented/misinterpreted facts and logical fallacies. But, this is way beyond that. I can't understand a bit of it.

Using Bayesian confidence, what are the odds it's not actually 'the rest of the world" but is infact 'you' that's not getting it?

Instead of being taught how to learn on their own, they were conditioned to let others do all their thinking for them.

Science journals are often used as their test of what is scientific and what is not. Then when the journal does not support their conclusions they protest it.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Here is a good example I ran across in an Atheism forum, which helps show the educational problem. Notice how if they cannot understand a theory then the problem is not with them, it’s blamed on me as though it’s my fault they are way behind in science:

Quote

[–]zeroone 1 point 1 year agoCan someone try to make sense of this:_http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/|[–]bloodredsun 2 points 1 year agoA big bag of crazy?|[–]zeroone 1 point 1 year agoOf course. But, ID arguments are usually at least somewhat coherent. Meaning, ID arguments usually involve invented/misinterpreted facts and logical fallacies. But, this is way beyond that. I can't understand a bit of it.

And when all else fails, it's back to philosophy, even though philosophy is NOT science.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

So now multiple scientists at multiple fora have told him 1) ID is wrong, but 2) Unlike ID, your stuff isn't even wrong, it's incoherent, we can't even make out what you're trying to say, you simply can't express yourself clearly enough for anyone to know what you're talking about.

I've read before about people in cults, that sometime evidence they're wrong can actually reinforce the belief, because they can't deal with the idea that the belief is wrong.

Personally, I'm disappointed. I wish Gary was only as terrible as your average ID person. At least the average ID person can usually make a clear argument. An actual, meaty argument we can go hog wild on. That's more fun that Gary. Hard to tear into anything he says because it's babbling gibberish.

Any idea which forum you're going to next gary? Hint, wherever it is, scientists there will call you incoherent. Hint 2: It won't be them who're deficient.

Please explain how you determined that the Visual Basic programmers who (in this case fairly) judged the computer model and theory are a "kiddie".

Having the ability to run (no longer supported by Microsoft) VB6 source code is now an indicator of an adult. The word "awesome" or its derivatives is from my generation (I'm 55) and I still use it on special occasions too. I'm therefore curious how you and others can so quickly come to this conclusion which seems to justify making such damning accusations.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

So now multiple scientists at multiple fora have told him 1) ID is wrong, but 2) Unlike ID, your stuff isn't even wrong, it's incoherent, we can't even make out what you're trying to say, you simply can't express yourself clearly enough for anyone to know what you're talking about.

Please explain how you know that these relatively few "scientists" who bother to protest are even qualified to judge a theory like this?

From my experience, scientists who are able to fairly judge it are OK with the theory. Those who trash theory prove to have not even read it, and in other ways show that they are too biased to be an unbiased judge.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

So now multiple scientists at multiple fora have told him 1) ID is wrong, but 2) Unlike ID, your stuff isn't even wrong, it's incoherent, we can't even make out what you're trying to say, you simply can't express yourself clearly enough for anyone to know what you're talking about.

Please explain how you know that these relatively few "scientists" who bother to protest are even qualified to judge a theory like this?

From my experience, scientists who are able to fairly judge it are OK with the theory. Those who trash theory prove to have not even read it, and in other ways show that they are too biased to be an unbiased judge.

Name some names, Gary. I doubt there are scientists who could find your writings coherent (let alone your theory meaningful).

Oh, and congratulations on being able to program in Visual Basic 6. I bet you can also recite the alphabet! Attaboy!

I only want to know why you trust the opinion of those who do not even bother to read the theory, over those who did and found it useful.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Yeah, you were just minding your own business, and we came to your blog and savagely abused you. Or, uh, something.

Quote

I only want to know why you trust the opinion of those who do not even bother to read the theory, over those who did and found it useful.

Why even read something that doesn't begin with discovery, but with mere assumption and assertion? You seem unable even to understand the importance of learning from the phenomena at issue, preferring simply to impose your prejudices in your "model."Glen Davidson

Here is a good example I ran across in an Atheism forum, which helps show the educational problem. Notice how if they cannot understand a theory then the problem is not with them, it’s blamed on me as though it’s my fault they are way behind in science:

Quote

[–]zeroone 1 point 1 year agoCan someone try to make sense of this:_http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/|[–]bloodredsun 2 points 1 year agoA big bag of crazy?|[–]zeroone 1 point 1 year agoOf course. But, ID arguments are usually at least somewhat coherent. Meaning, ID arguments usually involve invented/misinterpreted facts and logical fallacies. But, this is way beyond that. I can't understand a bit of it.

Using Bayesian confidence, what are the odds it's not actually 'the rest of the world" but is infact 'you' that's not getting it?

Instead of being taught how to learn on their own, they were conditioned to let others do all their thinking for them.

Science journals are often used as their test of what is scientific and what is not. Then when the journal does not support their conclusions they protest it.

Snoookums, you might be the brightest bulb in the box and your theory explain everything from dust bunnies to truck nuts, but if you don't care enough about it to be able to explain it to other people then it ain't worth shit

for example, you have never told us what specifically your bad-ass theory predicts. is there anything about your theory that is falsifiable? testable? can you state this clearly?

if not, you're just trolling for attention. i imagine you will find better love somewhere else because you haven't exactly convinced me or as far as i can tell anyone else either that you should be suffered as gladly as the creationist fools who have trod here before you.

but you are a good sport, right? you are dying to explain your theory but you acknowledge that your explainer has been busted or cracked or something. so, why don't you stick a wrench to that sombitch and start at ground zero and tell us exactly, without all the hyperbolic thrashing and gyrating, your theory explains and predicts. and how we can test it.

can you do this? if not then ask yourself why it is that you imagine that anyone anywhere could possibly ever give a fuck about what you have to say?

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

It just occurred to me that the "big tent" is actually a carny tent, the one they don't let kids into 'cause it's full of freaks.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Are you saying that you do not have the scientific ability to figure out what that clearly indicates? How does falsification change even a single word of it?

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Ahahahahaha!!! You took my Globe but you can't take away my Emblem!!!!

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 01 2012,15:19)

See below:--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The current rating of the program tells a different story:

Maybe we should continue the discussion over over at Planet Source Code? I am afraid your rating would further decrease then.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

That issue was already settled, a year ago. Another protest by those who only join the community to cause trouble would not hurt me now. But if you feel the need to talk to yourself, then go have fun. It will be like screaming at me from a soundproof closet. I’ll not even hear you.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Are you saying that you do not have the scientific ability to figure out what that clearly indicates? How does falsification change even a single word of it?

That is perhaps the worst written abstract I have ever seen. And I was a TA in the writing lab at university. Come on, Gary, your writing skills aren't even up to a 7th grade level. You might as well pull words out of a bag at random.

Let me try to help. Your abstract (and subsequent writings here) should be closer to something like the following:

Quote

This next generation Intelligence Generator is a simple reduction of a complex biological circuit. The circuit in this case is an insect's compound eye. The Generator will give us an idea of how self-learning intelligence works.

The program provides a precise and testable definition of "intelligence". Also provided is a precise and testable definition of "intelligent cause".

Using this model we will attempt to show the advantages of a two lobed brain over a single--even much large--lobed brain. In the analysis of this model we will also show important findings in the questions of Origin of Life, Intelligence, and Mechanisms of Speciation.

While this version still has many problems (which were in the original), it has the necessary advantage of being FUCKING CLEARLY STATED!!!.